QuoteWhen Democrats think about their party’s problems on the political map, they tend to think of President Trump’s ability to win the White House despite losing the popular vote and Republicans’ potent efforts to gerrymander congressional districts. But their problems extend beyond the Electoral College and the House: The Senate hasn’t had such a strong pro-GOP bias since the ratification of direct Senate elections in 1913.

Even if Democrats were to win every single 2018 House and Senate race for seats representing places that Hillary Clinton won or that Trump won by less than 3 percentage points — a pretty good midterm by historical standards — they could still fall short of the House majority and lose five Senate seats.

This is partly attributable to the nature of House districts: GOP gerrymandering and Democratic voters’ clustering in urban districts has moved the median House seat well to the right of the nation. Part of it is bad timing. Democrats have been cursed by a terrible Senate map in 2018: They must defend 25 of their 48 seats1 while Republicans must defend just eight of their 52.

But there’s a larger, long-term trend at work too — one that should alarm Democrats preoccupied with the future of Congress and the Supreme Court.

In the last few decades, Democrats have expanded their advantages in California and New York — states with huge urban centers that combined to give Clinton a 6 million vote edge, more than twice her national margin. But those two states elect only 4 percent of the Senate. Meanwhile, Republicans have made huge advances in small rural states — think Arkansas, North and South Dakota, Iowa, Louisiana, Montana and West Virginia — that wield disproportionate power in the upper chamber compared to their populations.
- - - - - - - - - -
Today, Republicans don’t even need to win any “swing states” to win a Senate majority: 52 seats are in states where the 2016 presidential margin was at least 5 percentage points more Republican than the national outcome. By contrast, there are just 28 seats in states where the margin was at least 5 points more Democratic, and only 20 seats in swing states.
- - - - - - - - - -
The GOP’s current 52-seat majority makes the Senate look tantalizingly competitive. But a look at the map reveals that the Democrats hold far more seats on borrowed time than Republicans do. The GOP doesn’t hold a single Senate seat in those 14 states that are more Democratic-leaning than the country overall. Meanwhile, Democrats hold six seats in the 26 more-Republican-than-average states, and all six are at risk in 2018.

When Obama marched into office in 2008, he engaged and brought along an energized Millennial add-on. They failed to keep up their numbers in the 2010 midterms. The GOP flush with advantage went to work on redrawing districts. All of this is rooted in that time.

gerrymandering is a time honored tradition that has its roots in US politics for over 200 years. And amusingly first given to us by the governor of Massachusetts, who was a ... Democratic Republican..

This practice, and the Electoral College, are methods used to modify the actual Will Of The People into something else. And in the 21st century, there is NO reason to continue these perversions of the democratic process.

Quotevision63
When Obama marched into office in 2008, he engaged and brought along an energized Millennial add-on. They failed to keep up their numbers in the 2010 midterms. The GOP flush with advantage went to work on redrawing districts. All of this is rooted in that time.

Many of the campaign staffers who managed the media and web campaign to bring in that millennial vote were eased out by party "regulars" after Obama entered office. I have read a number of articles written by these former campaign staff about this happening. That affected the 2010 election and even the 2012 reelection campaign where he got a noticeably smaller turnout from the millennial and other segments of the population.

Quotevision63
When Obama marched into office in 2008, he engaged and brought along an energized Millennial add-on. They failed to keep up their numbers in the 2010 midterms. The GOP flush with advantage went to work on redrawing districts. All of this is rooted in that time.

Many of the campaign staffers who managed the media and web campaign to bring in that millennial vote were eased out by party "regulars" after Obama entered office. I have read a number of articles written by these former campaign staff about this happening. That affected the 2010 election and even the 2012 reelection campaign where he got a noticeably smaller turnout from the millennial and other segments of the population.

There is massive turnover in party politics between elections. Mid-Terms don't draw like the generals. That's known. What you're implying is instead of going to the polls and casting a vote like they did previously, (a portion of) the Millennial voters needed to be led to the voting booth after apparently losing interest in politics? How stupid is that?

But isn't the overall point demographics, that the country is increasing concentrated in cities and urban areas along the coast and that by design of the Senate and as a result of gerrymandering house districts means that our democracy is increasing undemocratic. There has always been a heavy weighting to rural areas, but that is now "worst" or "more" than ever before.

People between 18 and 35 (the ones we currently call Millenials) have historically been lax voters, participating consistently for the past several decades in the low to mid 40 percent range. They got a tiny bit excited about Obama in '08, when 50% of them voted, but that wasn't exactly a groundswell. Their rate of voting in 2012 and 2016 was perfectly normal for people that age, historically. For midterms, their turnout is about half that (21% in 2010) Gen X'ers do a little better but not by much. Generally speaking, young Americans are very apathetic about politics. The same is true in Europe.

It would be great to see them at least get interested enough to vote in larger numbers. One theory for why young people are less likely to vote is that they wait longer now to engage in "adult" activities like having children and buying homes, investments in the future that tend to cause people to see their stake in society in a different way, and therefore care more about who is in office.

If you have young adult children or if you work with millennials, do they vote? Do you discuss it with them? (the civic duty, if not the actual politics) I do, and yes, and yes.

As for the 538 article, yeah. Ugh. Demographics and geography very much work again Dems right now and it's getting worse as progressives cluster in the cities and in the more populous states.

I live in state that's a pretty good example of the opposite. We have a Dem gov, Dem House, and as of November the Senate will likely flip back to Dem. It's very difficult for a conservative to win except in a few eastern WA districts. There's very little political diversity west of the cascades. It's a liberal bastion. While that's great for the state (if this is your political taste) it hurts on the national level because we can only send so many people to Congress. On a national level Democrats would be better off if we stayed in our small midwestern and southern hometowns and helped Dems thrive there. But we don't. our kids don't. They head for the cities and the coasts. The people they leave behind vote Republican.

Quotevision63
When Obama marched into office in 2008, he engaged and brought along an energized Millennial add-on. They failed to keep up their numbers in the 2010 midterms. The GOP flush with advantage went to work on redrawing districts. All of this is rooted in that time.

Many of the campaign staffers who managed the media and web campaign to bring in that millennial vote were eased out by party "regulars" after Obama entered office. I have read a number of articles written by these former campaign staff about this happening. That affected the 2010 election and even the 2012 reelection campaign where he got a noticeably smaller turnout from the millennial and other segments of the population.

There is massive turnover in party politics between elections. Mid-Terms don't draw like the generals. That's known. What you're implying is instead of going to the polls and casting a vote like they did previously, (a portion of) the Millennial voters needed to be led to the voting booth after apparently losing interest in politics? How stupid is that?

There is always a portion of the electorate that needs to be contacted, advertised to, and otherwise given incentive to get out and vote. I am not implying any such thing as them needing to be "led", but if you don't give them a reason to vote there are many who will not make the time. This applies to all demographic groups of voters, not just millennials.

QuoteLemon Drop
On a national level Democrats would be better off if we stayed in our small midwestern and southern hometowns and helped Dems thrive there. But we don't. our kids don't. They head for the cities and the coasts. The people they leave behind vote Republican.

Unfortunate, isn't it, that Dems are generally strongest in areas where people, y'know, want to live? And that the real Republican strongholds are in dying small towns full of angry old white guys?

In MN, the 2010 election was TERRIBLE because the millennials absolutely failed to come out - and the angry older generation came to hammer Obamacare.

What's absolutely mind-blowing is that the older generation was convinced to vote GOP AGAINST their financial interests. And the younger generation, who were able to stay on their parent's health insurance, just didn't see it as a big deal if they lost it.

I refuse to let the millennials off the hook - I have 2 of them as my kids. Their friends KNEW their voice was important but didn't vote.

Bernie was the first politician since Obama 2008 that seemed to get them excited.

QuoteJoeH
There is always a portion of the electorate that needs to be contacted, advertised to, and otherwise given incentive to get out and vote. I am not implying any such thing as them needing to be "led", but if you don't give them a reason to vote there are many who will not make the time. This applies to all demographic groups of voters, not just millennials.

Obama's administration barely even tried to prosecute any of the people responsible for the crash (cough*Harris-v-Mnuchin*cough just for you V), and Clinton would have been more of the same. Millennials need something to vote for and they got let down.

QuoteFilliam H. Muffman
Obama's administration barely even tried to prosecute any of the people responsible for the crash (cough*Harris-v-Mnuchin*cough just for you V), and Clinton would have been more of the same. Millennials need something to vote for and they got let down.

The financial regulatory statutes are written to make prosecution impossible.

You can't prosecute people with a law that makes successfully arguing a case impossible.

Long-term the demographics favor the Democratic Party. Short-term the only way the Democratic Party wins is when the Republicans tank the economy or get us into a no-win war and the Democrats are elected to repair the damage. The Republicans tend to be pretty good at doing both so there is hope for the Democrats.

Saint Cloud, Minnesota, where the weather is wonderful even when it isn't.

QuoteSpeedy
Long-term the demographics favor the Democratic Party. Short-term the only way the Democratic Party wins is when the Republicans tank the economy or get us into a no-win war and the Democrats are elected to repair the damage. The Republicans tend to be pretty good at doing both so there is hope for the Democrats.

This whole line of argument only holds water if we continue to hold regular, legitimate elections.

QuoteJoeH
There is always a portion of the electorate that needs to be contacted, advertised to, and otherwise given incentive to get out and vote. I am not implying any such thing as them needing to be "led", but if you don't give them a reason to vote there are many who will not make the time. This applies to all demographic groups of voters, not just millennials.

Obama's administration barely even tried to prosecute any of the people responsible for the crash (cough*Harris-v-Mnuchin*cough just for you V), and Clinton would have been more of the same. Millennials need something to vote for and they got let down.

No. They thought they knew better. The thought that party politics were passé. They surmised that Clinton was as bad or even worse than Trump like you did only you're older and should have known better. They chose racism, sexism and Republicanism.

The real justification for all of this cuteness was them operating under the cover of a "Certain" Clinton victory. Most of them and secretly you, regret it but aren't grownup enough to admit it.

QuoteLemon Drop
On a national level Democrats would be better off if we stayed in our small midwestern and southern hometowns and helped Dems thrive there. But we don't. our kids don't. They head for the cities and the coasts. The people they leave behind vote Republican.

Unfortunate, isn't it, that Dems are generally strongest in areas where people, y'know, want to live? And that the real Republican strongholds are in dying small towns full of angry old white guys?

And they don't even realize they are voting against their own interests.

Nancy Polosi is a very effective leader of Democrats in the House and Schumer is a good tactician in the Senate but it is time for them to make way for fresh faces with fresh ways of expressing the party's vision. I hope that a Democratic populist arises who can sell the idea that the Democrats are determined to not be in the pocket of elite economic interests. The real trick for that populist Democratic leader will be to find a way to appeal to younger people who tend to be the most liberal on social issues and yet also have populist appeal for those working class whites that tend to have more conservative views on social issues. That leader also needs to find a message that resonates pretty strongly with suburbanites - I think they are the key demographic that if the Democrats can swing 5% more their direction, then that goes a long ways toward mitigating the bias mentioned in the article in the OP.

QuoteTed King
Nancy Polosi is a very effective leader of Democrats in the House and Schumer is a good tactician in the Senate but it is time for them to make way for fresh faces with fresh ways of expressing the party's vision. I hope that a Democratic populist arises who can sell the idea that the Democrats are determined to not be in the pocket of elite economic interests. The real trick for that populist Democratic leader will be to find a way to appeal to younger people who tend to be the most liberal on social issues and yet also have populist appeal for those working class whites that tend to have more conservative views on social issues. That leader also needs to find a message that resonates pretty strongly with suburbanites - I think they are the key demographic that if the Democrats can swing 5% more their direction, then that goes a long ways toward mitigating the bias mentioned in the article in the OP.

That's not how it works. If you desire to be a leader, you have to DEMONSTRATE that you have what it takes to lead. Not just be handed the reigns to anything. That would be dumb. Say you're an Ohio congressman who is well respected. You can "desire" to lead all you want. Want to beat Pelosi? THEN OUT FUNDRAISE HER! Get yourself in a position to be the Whip then WAIT YOUR TURN!

Life doesn't work that way. If you want to be the boss then BE the boss. Make yourself indispensable. Nancy lost not a single Democrat in the midst of this lunacy. That's almost impossible but she does it time and time again on key legislation. She is as much responsible for MILLIONS of Americans keeping their healthcare as anyone. GIVE THE WOMAN HER CREDIT.

QuoteTed King
Nancy Polosi is a very effective leader of Democrats in the House and Schumer is a good tactician in the Senate but it is time for them to make way for fresh faces with fresh ways of expressing the party's vision. I hope that a Democratic populist arises who can sell the idea that the Democrats are determined to not be in the pocket of elite economic interests. The real trick for that populist Democratic leader will be to find a way to appeal to younger people who tend to be the most liberal on social issues and yet also have populist appeal for those working class whites that tend to have more conservative views on social issues. That leader also needs to find a message that resonates pretty strongly with suburbanites - I think they are the key demographic that if the Democrats can swing 5% more their direction, then that goes a long ways toward mitigating the bias mentioned in the article in the OP.

That's not how it works. If you desire to be a leader, you have to DEMONSTRATE that you have what it takes to lead. Not just be handed the reigns to anything. That would be dumb. Say you're an Ohio congressman who is well respected. You can "desire" to lead all you want. Want to beat Pelosi? THEN OUT FUNDRAISE HER! Get yourself in a position to be the Whip then WAIT YOUR TURN!

Life doesn't work that way. If you want to be the boss then BE the boss. Make yourself indispensable. Nancy lost not a single Democrat in the midst of this lunacy. That's almost impossible but she does it time and time again on key legislation. She is as much responsible for MILLIONS of Americans keeping their healthcare as anyone. GIVE THE WOMAN HER CREDIT.

If ANYTHING, we should be in full celebration of her.

Saint Cloud, Minnesota, where the weather is wonderful even when it isn't.

QuoteTed King
Nancy Polosi is a very effective leader of Democrats in the House and Schumer is a good tactician in the Senate but it is time for them to make way for fresh faces with fresh ways of expressing the party's vision. I hope that a Democratic populist arises who can sell the idea that the Democrats are determined to not be in the pocket of elite economic interests. The real trick for that populist Democratic leader will be to find a way to appeal to younger people who tend to be the most liberal on social issues and yet also have populist appeal for those working class whites that tend to have more conservative views on social issues. That leader also needs to find a message that resonates pretty strongly with suburbanites - I think they are the key demographic that if the Democrats can swing 5% more their direction, then that goes a long ways toward mitigating the bias mentioned in the article in the OP.

That's not how it works. If you desire to be a leader, you have to DEMONSTRATE that you have what it takes to lead. Not just be handed the reigns to anything. That would be dumb. Say you're an Ohio congressman who is well respected. You can "desire" to lead all you want. Want to beat Pelosi? THEN OUT FUNDRAISE HER! Get yourself in a position to be the Whip then WAIT YOUR TURN!

Life doesn't work that way. If you want to be the boss then BE the boss. Make yourself indispensable. Nancy lost not a single Democrat in the midst of this lunacy. That's almost impossible but she does it time and time again on key legislation. She is as much responsible for MILLIONS of Americans keeping their healthcare as anyone. GIVE THE WOMAN HER CREDIT.

If ANYTHING, we should be in full celebration of her.

I don't think the phrase "make way" that I used in the first sentence implies "just hand over the reigns". I meant that if the Democrats want to expand their coalition enough to overcome the bias pointed out in the OP that it will take fresh, new leadership with a fresh, new vision to sell to the people to make that expansion of the coalition. The second sentence in my post says, "I hope that a Democratic populist arises who can sell the idea that the Democrats are determined to not be in the pocket of elite economic interests." "Arises who can sell the idea..." doesn't suggest I am talking about "just handing over the reigns". The new leadership will need to sell a stronger populist agenda to more people to expand the Democratic coalition.

I did acknowledge Polosi's accomplishments - I said she has been a very effective leader. I am making the pragmatic judgement that if the Democratic Party is going to expand its coalition more then I think that leaders like Polosi and Schumer will need to be replaced by new leadership with a new, fresh more populist vision. That's just my pragmatic assessment, I can see how others may come to a different assessment.

I should have added to my last post that if the Republicans continue to be terrible at governing as they have been so far or Mueller finds devastating evidence against Trump or the economy goes sour - or all of those, then the Democrats will have a good chance of taking back at least the House even if there is no leadership change or increased populism in the Democratic vision.

QuoteTed King
I should have added to my last post that if the Republicans continue to be terrible at governing as they have been so far or Mueller finds devastating evidence against Trump or the economy goes sour - or all of those, then the Democrats will have a good chance of taking back at least the House even if there is no leadership change or increased populism in the Democratic vision.

This is the thing^. It has nothing to do with the congressional leadership. Look at the Teapublicans with Snidely Whiplash as speaker and the Turtle as Senate majority leader. The election for senators last cycle had more voters voting for Democrats but the House contests had more voters going Tespublican. All politics are local.

Saint Cloud, Minnesota, where the weather is wonderful even when it isn't.

QuoteTed King
I should have added to my last post that if the Republicans continue to be terrible at governing as they have been so far or Mueller finds devastating evidence against Trump or the economy goes sour - or all of those, then the Democrats will have a good chance of taking back at least the House even if there is no leadership change or increased populism in the Democratic vision.

This is the thing^. It has nothing to do with the congressional leadership. Look at the Teapublicans with Snidely Whiplash as speaker and the Turtle as Senate majority leader. The election for senators last cycle had more voters voting for Democrats but the House contests had more voters going Tespublican. All politics are local.

I agree that Congressional leadership isn't one of the major factors of most elections, but it isn't a nothing factor. If the next election is close, a small difference due to factors that are not normally determinate can make all the difference in the final results. I think there is a strong chance that the next elections will be close. A change in Congressional leadership is only one of the changes in "scenery" that I think need to take place for an expansion of the party's coalition that is needed not only to get over the hump in the next election that will probably be close, but also for the long term health of the party in general - in my opinion.

QuoteTed King
I should have added to my last post that if the Republicans continue to be terrible at governing as they have been so far or Mueller finds devastating evidence against Trump or the economy goes sour - or all of those, then the Democrats will have a good chance of taking back at least the House even if there is no leadership change or increased populism in the Democratic vision.

This is the thing^. It has nothing to do with the congressional leadership. Look at the Teapublicans with Snidely Whiplash as speaker and the Turtle as Senate majority leader. The election for senators last cycle had more voters voting for Democrats but the House contests had more voters going Tespublican. All politics are local.

I agree that Congressional leadership isn't one of the major factors of most elections, but it isn't a nothing factor. If the next election is close, a small difference due to factors that are not normally determinate can make all the difference in the final results. I think there is a strong chance that the next elections will be close. A change in Congressional leadership is only one of the changes in "scenery" that I think need to take place for an expansion of the party's coalition that is needed not only to get over the hump in the next election that will probably be close, but also for the long term health of the party in general - in my opinion.